marvel_moviesfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Spider-Man (Raimi series)
I think the terms "canon" or "non canon" are not really accurate, and they even have some pejorative connotations I mean, Who knows if this is going to be the "best" or "definitive" version. Many people consider that it was too soon to reboot the saga and if the producers have to reboot again, they are definitely going to do it so what are we going to then, consider the new version "canon" and all the other ones "non canon"? Besides, we are not sure if this is going to be a better version of the Spider-Man Universe or a closer version to the original material (which is questionable judging for the Spidey design but is too soon to tell) I suggest to have some new terms for that, but I cannot come up with any that s really good one that can be simple or short enough to coin easily, but still accurate Hoping that anybody can come up with better ones, here are some suggestions: (in this case using this page "Spider-Man (non-canon)") * Peter Parker (first trilogy) * Peter Parker (2003 film series) * Peter Parker (2003- 2007 film series) * Peter Parker (2003-2007) Give your opinions and your suggestions :Its called "canon" because its the most recent portrayal/series its nothing to do with how good or bad the portrayal was. - Doomlurker 01:06, January 14, 2011 (UTC) ::You are right, the "canon" term has nothing to do with the quality of the portrayal, but I still think it is innacurate, for example if we have a new movie about one character that contradicts many other movies stablished as "canon" it wouldn't be appropiate to this new movie "canon". There are even some cases of adaptations to other media that the producers have had to say later that are non-canonical :::With Spider-Man they are rebooting it so the new series of films will be the canon even if they contradict Raimi's established "canon". ::::The word "Canon" usually refers to what is accepted as fact in one fictional universe so if we are to continue calling films "canon" and "non-canon" then we will technically only be able to cover one film series. In my opinion, we should either consider every portrayal canonical or delete all articles not relating to a selected film series. In my opinion we should have the director of the first film in the series in the title (i.e. Peter Parker (Raimi series) or Peter Parker (Raimi)). ::::The exception to this would be the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which as a film series has no set beginning and would be left with the universe name in the title (i.e. Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) or Tony Stark (MCU). Let me know what you think.--3LMN 10:27, January 24, 2011 (UTC) This way would make more sense, Peter Parker (Raimi series). It would involve a hell of a lot of work, its not just a matter of creating these new pages but changing all of the links on other pages etc. I also think Marvel Cinematic Universe is better than the abbreviated version, it looks more professional. This will also require a number of disambiguation pages to be set up that link to the multiple versions of the character much like the Spider-Man page. - Doomlurker 10:46, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :I have encountered a small problem with this format. Mark Steven Johnson has directed films from two continuities (Ghost Rider and Daredevil) meaning there would be two continuities named for him, which would be confusing for users. On top of this, one Kenneth Johnson created the Hulk television series and directed the pilot. This not only means that are there three continuities called "Johnson series" but two Matt Murdock characters listed in the Johnson series. Let me know what you think. --3LMN 03:41, February 1, 2011 (UTC) ::I think TV movies that are part of a series should be named differently. I would suggest Steve Rogers for instance should be Steve Rogers (1979 series) but it wasn't part of a series so isn't as much of a problem. With the Hulk though it should be The Hulk (1970-80s series) or (1977-1990 series) or (1977-1990). This is mainly because the character is in the TV show too, not just the films. - Doomlurker 10:11, February 1, 2011 (UTC) :::I think that we need to have an across-the-board policy on this. I don't think we can have one set of rules for theatrical films and another set for television films. Naming all the characters by the year of their portrayal would require moving a large amount of film articles to different titles and changing all the links. I think we need to have a seperate policy for directors that share surnames or directors of multiple continuities. Perhaps we could have the year and the director in the title e.g. Matt Murdock (2003 Johnson series). Let me know what you think. --3LMN 02:46, April 9, 2011 (UTC) ::::Makes sense I guess. - Doomlurker 17:43, April 9, 2011 (UTC)